Democrat voter fraud is on!

In 2016 5D + 5R = 10

In 2020 7D + 6R = 10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Trump was the most divisive awful president ever. That is why people voted Biden.

---

What do you idiots like about Biden so far?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

What do you idiots like about Biden so far?

---

That he isn’t a clown like the last guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

That he isn’t a clown like the last guy.

---

So you have nothing other than your hate of Trump was somewhat quenched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

So you have nothing other than your hate of Trump was somewhat quenched.

---

More of relief that adults are in charge again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

More of relief that adults are in charge again.

---

LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

More of relief that adults are in charge again.

---

Yes they are doing great things for American and our enemies.

Just planting this here...

The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time

...for commentary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

We've been round and round on this. The legislature doesn't have to oversee every detail. The state legislatures set the overall manner, then the states appoint people to get things done in that "manner." So if the legislature chooses Candyland, the appointed election officials get to buy the game, set up the game, lay out the pieces. So long as the results are determined by Candyland, the manner was chosen.

You don't have to go back to the state legislature for a special state constitutional change in order to buy another box of pencils. If the legislature says "popular vote" and you run out of pencils, you can just go buy more pencils. Mail in ballots are still a way to do a popular vote. Expanding the scope of something you were already doing in order to continue voting in the "manner" of popular vote is ok. It's allowed under the Constitution. This isn't my opinion, it's been ruled on my a federal judge and explained in very much the same way. If individual states broke their own rules about setting rules, that's for each state to determine (and they all certified their votes).

---

I've gone directly to the point, and you have gone round and round on this.

PA--Had no authority to allow universal mail-in voting without a constitutional amendment. Also had no authority to extend voting deadlines that have been overturned.
WI--Had no authority to allow absentee ballots to be cast without proper absentee ballot requests. Also had no authority (decision upheld by WI Supreme Court) to expand the "indefinitely confined" provision.
GA--Had no authority to enter into an unconstitutional consent agreement regarding election procedures not approved by the GA Legislature.

No evidence of fraud is needed to clearly throw out these three states.

Your illogical argument tries to claim that even if it is in direct violation of state law, state election officials can decide to conduct an election under whatever procedures they see fit. That's not how Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 reads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

I've gone directly to the point, and you have gone round and round on this.

PA--Had no authority to allow universal mail-in voting without a constitutional amendment. Also had no authority to extend voting deadlines that have been overturned.
WI--Had no authority to allow absentee ballots to be cast without proper absentee ballot requests. Also had no authority (decision upheld by WI Supreme Court) to expand the "indefinitely confined" provision.
GA--Had no authority to enter into an unconstitutional consent agreement regarding election procedures not approved by the GA Legislature.

No evidence of fraud is needed to clearly throw out these three states.

Your illogical argument tries to claim that even if it is in direct violation of state law, state election officials can decide to conduct an election under whatever procedures they see fit. That's not how Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 reads.

---

It's not just my argument. This has been adjudicated.

And if you're throwing votes out because of extra-legislative changes to the election process, your vote and mine get tossed, too. And frankly, that disenfranchises me more than you (because my vote is a higher percentage of the total vote count for the guy I voted for than yours is for your guy). :) I want my vote to count. Even if the Governor changed some election details.

The details of the voting procedures aren't outlined in the Constitution. It just says "manner." That's a broad term that doesn't extend to the color of the paper the ballots are printed on or the precise voting locations or the budget for sharpies or what radio station should be playing in the background. How could anything get done that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

I've gone directly to the point, and you have gone round and round on this.

PA--Had no authority to allow universal mail-in voting without a constitutional amendment. Also had no authority to extend voting deadlines that have been overturned.
WI--Had no authority to allow absentee ballots to be cast without proper absentee ballot requests. Also had no authority (decision upheld by WI Supreme Court) to expand the "indefinitely confined" provision.
GA--Had no authority to enter into an unconstitutional consent agreement regarding election procedures not approved by the GA Legislature.

No evidence of fraud is needed to clearly throw out these three states.

Your illogical argument tries to claim that even if it is in direct violation of state law, state election officials can decide to conduct an election under whatever procedures they see fit. That's not how Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 reads.

---

Even if everything you say is true, your three issues are moot. If you don’t resolve those cases BEFORE the election, there is nothing a court can do after the election. You can’t proceed to play a game by a set of rules and then ask for a redo when you lose because you think the rules were unfair.

Congress can’t refuse to accept electors on such a basis - that is unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

There may have been manipulation of voting machines in the 2020 presidential election. That may or may not be proven......

---

Call it proven.

https://rumble.com/vdlpsb-absolute-p...2fi7t&mc=5cokn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

Call it proven.

https://rumble.com/vdlpsb-absolute-p...2fi7t&mc=5cokn

---

Based on his understanding of how the Dominion machines work...and he has seen schematics via some technical journals...my brother says it would take him all of 10 minutes to write code that would switch votes from one candidate to another. Of course, as he says, the real trick would be to do that and have it go undetected, which would take him a little longer to do.

BUT!! what if those who would do the detecting are already in the camp of the beneficial candidate(s)? In that case detection would not be a concern since they are not going to report the fraud anyway.

The 2020 POTUS election was stolen, and worse, now that they have gotten away with it, they will continue to do it again and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

More of relief that adults are in charge again.

---

Democrats have never been the “adults in the room or in charge”. Ever! And they (Obama II) aren’t now either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Congress can’t refuse to accept electors on such a basis - that is unconstitutional.

---

A liberal telling us what’s constitutional. 🤣🤪